Crafted rune missing

Comments

Mine was a Legendary Greater Vampiric w/ 7% lifesteal that reverted to Heroic. I don't remember how many tunes, but it was earlier in the tuning because I was surprised on my luck with so few tunes. I crafted one or two others (don't remember because they didn't turn out legendary or had stats I didn't like.) I did not receive any compensation.

thank you for the very detailed and very candid response. I, for one, appreciate it greatly.

I have a couple of questions for you.

how confident are you in your data regarding what the player saw on their screen, vs. what your data showed during the OOS bug period. I ask this because

not all of us (most of us?) don't bother screen shooting every single thing we craft, unless it's of "ZOMGZAMAZEBALLZ!!!!1!!!" I know that my own guild line chat has plenty of people sharing rune results, that I don't bother sharing anything unless it's a PERFECT rune, or when I get spectacularly lucky and get a legendary early in the tuning process.

if the problem was inherent in the out of sync connection between the player's device and the server, how are you able to determine what they saw on their screen vs. what the server is telling you? and more importantly, if a player feels that what they saw does not match your data, what avenue of response do they have to validate their position, if they did not have a screenshot?

was there any weight given on how much luck is required for a certain rune vs. others?

until the rune change yesterday, crafting a good blue bulwark rune was incredibly risky, because of the seemingly super high likelihood of resist showing up in the secondary stat. crafting a good blue bulwark is like the holy grail, at least for me. So, when you craft up a great blue bulwark, and have it "nerfed", it feels like a bigger slap in the face? not sure if that computes for you.

I think much of the anger over the compensation has to do with a very difficult to quantify / qualify FEELING, and I personally think that the feel is highly tied to the TYPE of rune crafted, because ultimately, some are just a lot more useful than others. I feel that if this was not considered, maybe it should

ultimately, i personally didn't lose out big during the problem, because I saw it early and stopped the crafting, and what I did craft was "only" a greater. I WAS happy with the rune though, which is why my own compensation of 250 gems FEELS like a joke.

how confident are you in your data regarding what the player saw on their screen, vs. what your data showed during the OOS bug period. I ask this because

not all of us (most of us?) don't bother screen shooting every single thing we craft, unless it's of "ZOMGZAMAZEBALLZ!!!!1!!!" I know that my own guild line chat has plenty of people sharing rune results, that I don't bother sharing anything unless it's a PERFECT rune, or when I get spectacularly lucky and get a legendary early in the tuning process.

if the problem was inherent in the out of sync connection between the player's device and the server, how are you able to determine what they saw on their screen vs. what the server is telling you? and more importantly, if a player feels that what they saw does not match your data, what avenue of response do they have to validate their position, if they did not have a screenshot?

If we were 100% confident, I wouldn't be responding to the thread. That isn't meant to sound flippant, just stating that obviously we believe in a large set of cases - we got it right, but either missed people or incorrectly interpreted the data we had for them.

TLDR on the data: our client does some logging and our server does some logging - looking at the difference in terms of OOS issues allows us an "imperfect" look at discrepancies. In some cases, they're clear because both client and server reported what they thought happened (and were different) - and in some cases, we have partial - only one reported (usually server) because the client didn't get the opportunity before it decided to clean up/reset.

In almost all cases when discussing compensation versus "proof" - we do our best to give the benefit of the doubt. Which, again, is why I am responding to the thread.

In terms of actual resolution for cases of error - ultimately, it's going to end up being me asking folks to PM me so that I can log and work with CS/devs to handle case-by-case, which will take time but ensure that people understand we aren't being dismissive of sentiment.

(2) was there any weight given on how much luck is required for a certain rune vs. others?

until the rune change yesterday, crafting a good blue bulwark rune was incredibly risky, because of the seemingly super high likelihood of resist showing up in the secondary stat. crafting a good blue bulwark is like the holy grail, at least for me. So, when you craft up a great blue bulwark, and have it "nerfed", it feels like a bigger slap in the face? not sure if that computes for you.

I think much of the anger over the compensation has to do with a very difficult to quantify / qualify FEELING, and I personally think that the feel is highly tied to the TYPE of rune crafted, because ultimately, some are just a lot more useful than others. I feel that if this was not considered, maybe it should

Given the number of players who were crafting during the period affected - it is extremely difficult to get too detailed in a general solution.

We wanted to try to resolve this as quickly as we could (and it still took a long time) by looking broad cases:

What tier (Lesser->Superior) did someone craft/tune

Did someone lose a Legendary (that we could detect)

How much overall did they tune during this period were the three criteria as I mentioned above.

We used this to categorize and determine groups of compensation.

So, yes, it does compute that there are exception cases to general / broad compensation. Does that mean we're unwilling to take a further look in exception cases? No.

ultimately, i personally didn't lose out big during the problem, because I saw it early and stopped the crafting, and what I did craft was "only" a greater. I WAS happy with the rune though, which is why my own compensation of 250 gems FEELS like a joke.

Just so I can better understand your perspective on this, from reading - I am inferring that you encountered the problem, but did not "lose a Legendary" or otherwise tune a lot. So the 250 gems in essence was for the fact you were disrupted at all - why does that feel like a joke? Ideally, if you had been adversely affected by having a highly prized outcome change - you would have received a different compensation package.

The person listed above who received a large package was directly impacted - they might not have realized it as the poster indicates, but we can't tell from data who "noticed they were impacted" versus who "didn't know they were impacted".

Just so I can better understand your perspective on this, from reading - I am inferring that you encountered the problem, but did not "lose a Legendary" or otherwise tune a lot. So the 250 gems in essence was for the fact you were disrupted at all - why does that feel like a joke? Ideally, if you had been adversely affected by having a highly prized outcome change - you would have received a different compensation package.

I appreciate the detailed response, and am thankful and satisfied with the explanation of the methodology used to arrive at your conclusions. given the available tools and the time constraints, I can understand why you and the team made the decisions you did.

now for my personal response on why i felt like my personal compensation was a joke:

I crafted a greater blue rune. I believe it was a bulwark, but might have been a focus. I honestly do not recall anymore. I pushed it all the way to legendary, with 1 tune left, and was happy with it. it did not have a 4th stat.

when i read about the problem, i went back to check, and it was down to a heroic, and that's when I submitted my ticket.

to tune a greater rune with nearly all available tuning opportunities takes something to the degree of ~750 gems? (i'm not exact on this, but i believe i'm in the ballpark, between 700 and 800?).

THAT is why i felt the 250 was a joke. it didn't even cover the cost of the tuning of the rune, much less the downgrade.

How do you consider the gems even worth the compensation?
Don't even get mats returned to craft again.
That's assuming if we did craft with them that somehow those same stats hit the rune and our passives return as well.
Anyone with proof of the rune itself should get them returned to original state.

@Eej I don't understand why you guys don't just give the benefit of the doubt to the Player and overcompensate them? You guys clearly know it was your fault for this glitch that affect players in a very adverse way. While we can't do anything but accept the fact that your game can't bring the lost rune back, you guys can most certainly just do your players a solid by over compensating them.

I mean, you (or whoever is in charge of the compensation) can't even return the proper crafting materials?

You could easily make the majority of affected players satisfied by giving them more than what they spent. It's only fair and quite frankly, extremely reasonable. It's so easy, so why not just do it? For example, for @Oredith, give him something like 1,500 gems and crafting mats, that seems fair and reasonable.

I was not affected by this glitch, but I sure am just as annoyed as all these folks in this thread by the response of DB.

We missed (during data analysis) that someone crafted a Legendary that changed to a lesser rarity

So where I would like to take this from here is to understand the scope of people who crafted Greater or Superior Legendary runes that somehow were impacted - understanding this, we can better analyze how we can proceed.

I am also open to considering other factors - but it appears to me that the single largest factor that couldn't be overcome is the above.

This is what happened to me. I wasn't hugely upset because it was a so-so legendary, I didn't lose extra traits. But it went from an okay rune to a bleh. The gems I received compensated me for the gems I spent, so i let the rest go.

To start, I didn't lose an extremely valuable rune. I was tuning an improved soul stealer, so nowhere close to those who lost superiors. That said, I did tune it several times to heroic status so that I could get the lifesteal stat. After the OOS error, my rune was down to rare status, ie completely useless. 250 gems won't even cover all of the tune attempts, never mind the mats.

Again, I understand that those who lost superior legendaries have a much bigger beef, and so please take care of them first. But for anyone affected, regardless of rune tier or rarity, there should be significant compensation. As previously expressed, losing a great tuning result due to system error and only getting gems as compensation feels cheap. It feels like DB doesn't understand how many attempts it takes to get the desired result. So many tuning attempts have been discarded due to unacceptable secondary stats or RNG not producing optimal tier/stars. A small gem compensation will not even allow me to build one more rune to replace. I have to echo the others that can't understand why the compensation was so stingy for so many affected. Leaves a bad taste in our mouths.

At this point, i'm appreciative of the candid response provided by Eej, and while I don't think the compensation is to the level of "fair", i am sympathetic to the difficulty of their position.

My big issue at the start was consistency of payout, with the concern that players who spend more actual dollars on the game were treated better then those who spent less (or none). Eej and Joel addressed those and confirmed that there definitely was a system in place that did not play favoritism.

I would leave off by simply stating my opinion that for future incidents like these, the dev team might consider over-compensating. it may hit you a bit on the profit for that week/period, but it will buy you a lot of good will which translates to future dollars.

happy players continue to spend (big or small) consistently, unhappy ones will start to only buy into extremely good deals, or not at all.

In almost all cases when discussing compensation versus "proof" - we do our best to give the benefit of the doubt. Which, again, is why I am responding to the thread.

In terms of actual resolution for cases of error - ultimately, it's going to end up being me asking folks to PM me so that I can log and work with CS/devs to handle case-by-case, which will take time but ensure that people understand we aren't being dismissive of sentiment.

I believe the above got lost in my second response.

To reiterate: I am actively asking for those who were affected and who did not receive what they believe is appropriate (or at all) compensation to reach out to me via PM. I'll be working over the weekend to log all the cases and work to resolve the issues.

In addition, I'll be going back through the thread - if folks who have reported initially about the above don't contact me - I'll do my best to log and reach out to them.